An Interview with Jeanne Fagnani, Center National de la Recherche Scientifique
Lewis: Could
you begin by providing an overview of the 35-hour law in France?
Fagnani: In 1998 and 2000, two laws were passed under the Socialist government. One aim of the new laws was to improve work-life balance. However, the main objective was to reduce unemployment and create jobs by sharing work more evenly. In fact, they did create more jobs, although there was some controversy about the actual increase in the number of jobs. Some economists state that there was at that time a better economic situation in France, and the increase in jobs was not due to the reduction in working time. Yet, the 35-hour laws have created jobs.
Lewis: Does the law apply to everybody or are some people exempt?
Fagnani: The first law applied only to companies with more than 20 employees. At that time, other companies were not required to implement the law, but they could if the employers and employees reached an agreement. Many smaller companies waited until the second law had been passed requiring all employers to reduce working time to 35 hours a week.
Lewis: Were there any other issues in the implementation of the laws?
Fagnani: Yes. First, it is important to take into account that employers and trade unions or representatives of employees (if no trade union was represented in the company) had to sign an agreement about the work reorganization and the wages. Second, successful implementation depended, among other things, on the economic sector and the size of the companies. For example, in the biggest oil company in France, “Total Elf,” it was easy to implement this law. This is a large, wealthy company and they could afford to increase the number of jobs. Yet in many other companies, and in particular the small and medium sized companies where there are a lot of women working, it was often difficult and problematic to implement the 35-hour laws.
Lewis: How are the 35-hour laws funded in France?
Fagnani: If the companies created jobs, then the State helped them by subsidizing the social contributions of newly hired low-wage employees (earning up to 1.8 minimum wage). But not all companies decided to create jobs and take advantage of this funding. Therefore, criticism of this law is that it is very expensive for the State. But, in exchange, productivity per hour has increased.
Lewis: How did employers respond to this law? Were they generally in favor or not?
Fagnani: No, the majority of employers were strongly opposed to the law, although they had to comply with it. However, in exchange for the reduction of working time, employers obtained the right to introduce more flexibility, which also meant more flexible working hours.
Lewis: Flexible working hours are usually seen as something positive in relation to work and family. But you’re talking about flexibility imposed by the company?
Fagnani: I am. Flexibility in the 35-hour laws does not have the usual meaning that is used in the UK or in publications on work and family. In exchange for the reduction of working time, the employers obtained the right to calculate the average working time on an annual basis. This did not prove to be a problem in some industries, where working hours remain standard. But in many companies, they decided to oblige the employees to accept more flexibility in return for shorter hours. Greater flexibility means more atypical working hours such as working late in the evening, early in the morning, at night, during the weekend, or on Saturdays. And most French people don’t like that schedule because they have children and they want to be at home during the weekend and in the evenings. People were often dissatisfied when they were required to work atypical hours. France has very high unemployment rates (around 10 percent), so that means that many employees working in the private sector had no choice but to accept the atypical or variable work hours.
Lewis: So the law affects employees in different ways depending on which sector they are working in?
Fagnani: Yes, in the private sector the biggest divide is between workers in the protected and already family-friendly companies and the others. By protected, I mean employees who have stable jobs, where the companies are not in dire straits, they have no problem with competition, and so on. The laws were positive for the employees working in these private sector companies. In private sector companies where the power relationships between the employees and the employers are unbalanced, it was not really an improvement for the employees. For example, in the retail sector or in the transportation sector, where they are faced with very strong economic demands and dealing with competition, it was not possible for the employees to resist the demands of their employers.
Lewis: What role do Unions have in these laws?
Fagnani: The Unions were very much in favor of these laws. Unions were supposed to negotiate with the employers how many jobs would be created and new work schedules. But, the Trade Union membership in France is only 10% in the public sector and 6% in the private sector, so the power relationships are very unbalanced between the Trade Unions and the employers. The Trade Unions were not able to resist the demands of the employers all the time, except in the public sector, of course. In practice, in a context of high unemployment, the private sector employers could often do what they wanted. Therefore, one of the big problems is that there is a growing divide between the public and private sectors about work schedules and working conditions.
Lewis: Speaking of work schedules, how has the long-hours culture of management been impacted by the 35-hour laws?
Fagnani: To begin with, managers typically report that they cannot count how many hours they work, so it did not make sense to limit their hours to 35 a week. Therefore, it was agreed that they would receive extra days off - at least eight days per year but often more in large companies. However, some of the managers never take advantage of these days off because they have too much work to do. In addition, the 35-hour laws have led to intensification of work for managers. For instance, secretaries who used to stay until 6 o’clock now tend to leave earlier because of the 35-hour week, which makes more work for the managers. In many cases, companies chose not to create new jobs, so other people have had to work harder in order to complete the work at hand. This is another unintended consequence of the laws. Managers say “Yes, it’s true, I have more days off than before, but when I am working the stress has increased. And I’m more tired! I have more tasks at work than before.” Managers seem to be ambivalent about the reduced working hours.
Lewis: Do you think that managers use some of this extra holiday time to catch up on their work? Could they not take their holidays, but finish their work at home when they’re supposed to be on holidays?
Fagnani: Not always. It depends where they work and it depends on the kind of jobs that they are doing. In France, it’s much less common to work from home than in the US.
Lewis: Can employers demand that people work more than 35 hours?
Fagnani: Yes, if they rely on overtime. But once again, it’s complicated. In the beginning, it was not possible for employers to rely on overtime because the government wanted the employers to increase the number of jobs. The new government changed the law one year ago. They did not suppress the law; instead, it is now possible to increase the number of hours due to overtime. Overtime is paid for more than the “normal hours,” and it is not compulsory. Most of the employers said, “Instead of hiring new staff, we will increase overtime.” Since the majority of wages in France are not very high, most low-paid employees accepted the overtime as a means to increase their earnings.
Lewis: Can you talk about your research which evaluated the impact of the 35-hour laws on work and family?
Fagnani: I carried out (in collaboration with M. T. Letablier) a survey on a representative national sample of working parents with at least one child under the age of six. My findings suggest that for the majority of the parents (60 percent), these laws have made it easier to combine work and family. However, one should take into account that women who have young children in France try to avoid holding a job that is not compatible with family life.
Lewis: What about the remaining 40 percent of your sample?
Fagnani: It depended. For some of them it did not change the management of their everyday life because their work schedules have not changed, they just have more days off. The others were ambivalent. They said, “It has improved my private life. I have more time for leisure, for my family. But, I am very tired when I come back home.” Research in this field has provided evidence that due to the demands of work, they are working hard during their 35 hours.
Lewis: How has childcare been affected by the 35-hour laws, since an increase in non-standard work must make childcare difficult?
Fagnani: Yes, for parents who have irregular working hours or have atypical work schedules, the management of everyday life is difficult. And there is now an increasing demand from working parents for more flexible and formal childcare. For instance, parents would like the crèche [a public day care nursery] to remain open later than 7 pm. Most of the childcare facilities close at half past six or at seven pm. Many parents have difficulties with getting back early enough to pick up their child.
Lewis: How do people in France feel about extending childcare hours?
Fagnani: The staff in childcare facilities resist that concept very much. Most parents would prefer to have standard hours. But if they have no choice, then they would like more flexible childcare. People are afraid of unemployment - except in the public sector where they can resist, because they have secure jobs for life (when they have the status of public servant).
Lewis: We have discussed some of the criticisms and unintended consequences of the laws. Do you see other limitations of this legislation?
Fagnani: Other limitations of the current laws are that they only apply to salaried employees and they do not cover the independent and self-employed. They also have increased the divide between the protected employees and the others who could not resist the demands of their employers.
Overall, I think the 35-hour week is an improvement for the majority of salaried people as far as the work/life balance is concerned. The point is that in the social and economic context in France, with a high unemployment rate and where Trade Unions are quite weak, this law has side effects. And the divide between the protected employees and the ones who are not so well protected has been increasing.
Lewis: It seems that the impact is very mixed. Some people gain time for family by working shorter hours, but not all, and there is a price to pay in terms of intensification of work and atypical hours. The high unemployment that stimulated the law weakens employees’ ability to really benefit from shorter hours...
Fagnani: …and we will have to wait until we can really assess the long term economic impact of these laws.
To contact Jeanne, please e-mail fagnani@univ-paris1.fr
See also Chart: General Limits on Working Hours and Additional Resources Related to Working Time Policies
|
{literal}
{/literal}
New from the